Manjikian: Beads on Fire

njikian-beads-on-fire/
By Lalai Manjikian – on September 22, 2009

In my everyday life, I am an advocate for dialogue. In most cases, I
prefer addressing issues head on, as diplomatically as possible, of
course, although being fully aware that all hell can break loose. This
approach is likely to generate strong emotions, tension, conflict, and
pain, and may not even solve the problem at hand; instead, it may make
things worse. Communication is, after all, to quote John D. Peters, `a
matter of faith and risk.’ Loud silences tend to be unsettling, so
generally, some prefer taking the risk to vocalize what needs to be
said, even if it is deeply flawed or the outcome is highly
unpredictable.

Turkey and Armenia have seemingly opted for this route, or should I
say, for this so-called `roadmap.’ Recently, the two neighbouring
nations announced the initiation of protocols with the aim of
`normalizing’ their diplomatic relations, mediated by Switzerland. It
all sounds so noble on the surface. With the advent of these
protocols, Turkey has agreed to address the issue of the Armenian
Genocide, by shrewdly displaying its readiness and willingness to
engage in `dialogue’ with Armenia around contentious issues. Armenia’s
government has decided to jump in for the ride as well, with Turkey
sitting firmly at the wheel. However, for someone who is a fan of
dialogue, I, along with many other Armenians living in the diaspora
and in Armenia alike, are not about to embark on this ambiguous and
dehumanizing realpolitik joyride. This excuse of a rapprochement may
provide a diplomatic rush to the heads of certain leaders, but in
reality, it can severely compromise Armenia’s national security and
the Armenian Cause..

What I find to be particularly appalling is the degree of concessions
the government of Armenia seems willing to make, particularly found in
the protocol’s clause pertaining to `a dialogue on the historical
dimension.’ This `dialogue’ includes an `impartial and scientific
examination of the historical records and archives to define existing
problems and formulate recommendations.’ This clause, which relates
namely to the genocide, is misleading in more than one way: Such a
statement places an enormous and unwarranted question mark on an
indisputable historical fact. Furthermore, it shows utter disrespect
to those massacred, undermines all the activists who have dedicated
their lives to genocide awareness and recognition, and most absurdly,
completely dismisses the considerable existing body of research
dedicated to the genocide, conducted over decades by scholars from all
around the world, including from Turkey. It is also an insult to the
more than 20 countries that have formally recognized the Armenian
Genocide.

Although the Armenian-Turkish border is a historically and politically
complex issue, in many Armenians’ eyes, an open border could be the
answer to Armenia’s economic problems. As an Armenian living in
relative diasporic ease, I can empathize with the desire to open the
border for economic reasons. But if the border is opened under the
conditions as outlined by the protocols, this political faux pas will
come to reaffirm Turkey’s current borders, which are based on
dispossession and genocide. Another unsettling aspect about the
protocols is the non-mention of self-determination in any of the
clauses found in the protocols. What does this entail for the people
of Karabagh?

As non-transparent as these protocols are, a part of me sees the value
in two enemy countries attempting to communicate. I am, after all, a
staunch believer in non-hostile and constructive dialogue between
Armenians and Turks on less formal grounds, meaning on interpersonal
levels. But how do you engage in truthful dialogue when a government
whose ancestors are undisputedly guilty of genocide are once again
questioning it? How do you embark in a relationship, without
adequately confronting your past?

Although our everyday lives unfold throughout the diaspora, we are
misguided if we consider ourselves to be a marginal voice, having
directly assisted, supported, celebrated, mourned, and lived with
Armenia for decades. Today, more than ever, being passive about this
roadmap is not an option, nor can we accept to lose ground after all
the progress Armenia and the diaspora have marked together – in the
struggle from Armenia’s independence, to the nation’s development, to
the struggle for a liberated Karabagh, to the number of countries
worldwide who officially recognize the Armenian Genocide.

In the name of our ancestors who were massacred and displaced, and in
the name of humanity who has witnessed the cycle of genocide repeat
itself time and again, we cannot afford to settle for such a
dehumanizing faux pas masked as diplomacy.

The protocols undoubtedly ignited sparks all around the Armenian
world, setting many beads on fire. And the calls for mass mobilization
will continue to spread inextinguishable flames, until justice
prevails.
Note: John Durham Peters’ citation is from his book Speaking into the
Air: A History of the Idea of Communication (1999) from the chapter
`Introduction: The Problem of Communication.’